Political posts and news mentioning Apvienotais saraksts from monitored Latvian public sources.
@Maaronkuls Europe protects us, not we Europe! Europe will survive without us, we without Europe, no!
From@Maaronkuls@JurgisLiepnieks Kulbergs is not the brightest star in the sky. That much is clear. But we DO need to be more brazen in the European context.
Open referenced post
From@AndrisKulbergs🇱🇻 Latvia is currently paying for security from which all of Europe benefits. However, the bill remains largely with us. From 2027, Latvia will spend at least 5% of GDP on defense. We are strengthening the EU and NATO external border with the aggressor state. This border is not only Latvia's border—it is Europe's security border. But the current system is unfair. ➖️ Latvia borrows money to build fortifications and strengthen the eastern border. ➖️ Due to border-area risk, we pay higher interest on this debt. ➖️ Due to geopolitical risk, Latvia also loses investments and tourists. ➖️ At the same time, we buy billions worth of armaments and military equipment mainly from 🇩🇪 Germany, 🇫🇷 France, 🇸🇪 Sweden, 🇳🇱 the Netherlands, 🇪🇸 Spain and other countries. So Latvia takes on the debt and risk, while our defense spending simultaneously warms Western European economies. And all this is done to protect not only Riga or Daugavpils. Deterrence at Latvia's border also makes Berlin, Munich, Paris and Amsterdam safer. Therefore, the 7 billion euros Latvia is asking for is not “extra money for Latvia.” It is part of the cost of protecting Europe's common border. In seven years, that would be only about 0.4% of the nearly 2 trillion euro EU budget. For 449 million Europeans—about 2.23 euros per person per year. One coffee. For Latvia's inhabitants—about 540 euros per year. This difference very clearly shows the problem. Latvia will defend its border in any case. The question is—will all of Europe pay for Europe's common security, or will we leave a disproportionately large share of the bill to countries that happen geographically to be next to the aggressor's border? We are not asking for solidarity just for the sake of solidarity. We are offering the most effective European security investment—investing money where the real threat is. 🇪🇺 Europe's eastern border is common. The bill for its defense must also be common. https://t.co/oyE1yMcnR2
Open referenced post
Wow. This incompetence is starting to become seriously dangerous. No, we are not protecting any Europe! No, nobody owes us anything. Europe will survive without an independent Latvia, just as it survived all the years of the Cold War. Spain, Germany, etc. help us for moral and solidarity reasons — and thank them for that, not for pragmatic reasons. It turns out we have a prime minister who not only doesn't know the ABCs of international politics, but doesn't even recognize a map. He could at least have kept quiet.
From@AndrisKulbergs🇱🇻 Latvia is currently paying for security from which all of Europe benefits. However, the bill remains largely with us. From 2027, Latvia will spend at least 5% of GDP on defense. We are strengthening the EU and NATO external border with the aggressor state. This border is not only Latvia's border—it is Europe's security border. But the current system is unfair. ➖️ Latvia borrows money to build fortifications and strengthen the eastern border. ➖️ Due to border-area risk, we pay higher interest on this debt. ➖️ Due to geopolitical risk, Latvia also loses investments and tourists. ➖️ At the same time, we buy billions worth of armaments and military equipment mainly from 🇩🇪 Germany, 🇫🇷 France, 🇸🇪 Sweden, 🇳🇱 the Netherlands, 🇪🇸 Spain and other countries. So Latvia takes on the debt and risk, while our defense spending simultaneously warms Western European economies. And all this is done to protect not only Riga or Daugavpils. Deterrence at Latvia's border also makes Berlin, Munich, Paris and Amsterdam safer. Therefore, the 7 billion euros Latvia is asking for is not “extra money for Latvia.” It is part of the cost of protecting Europe's common border. In seven years, that would be only about 0.4% of the nearly 2 trillion euro EU budget. For 449 million Europeans—about 2.23 euros per person per year. One coffee. For Latvia's inhabitants—about 540 euros per year. This difference very clearly shows the problem. Latvia will defend its border in any case. The question is—will all of Europe pay for Europe's common security, or will we leave a disproportionately large share of the bill to countries that happen geographically to be next to the aggressor's border? We are not asking for solidarity just for the sake of solidarity. We are offering the most effective European security investment—investing money where the real threat is. 🇪🇺 Europe's eastern border is common. The bill for its defense must also be common. https://t.co/oyE1yMcnR2
Open referenced post
This mechanical increase of government and Saeima deputies' salaries must be frozen; there can be no talk of a rise when the budget lacks funds. There is no room for discussion there https://t.co/RgJoyIp11T
From@DienaLvPrime Minister Andris Kulbergs (AS) conceptually believes that government salaries should be frozen next year, the prime minister's communications adviser Elīna Šverna told the LETA agency. https://t.co/GfUOJv5XyZ
Open referenced post
@EdvardsSmiltens Edvard, in life people have various circumstances why they cannot access their money in a bank account. It is unfair to nationalize it. Imagine Latvians in 1939 who had an account in Switzerland but remained on the other side of the 'Iron Curtain'. Then someone simply took their money?
From@EdvardsSmiltens💶 EUR 26.8 million – money that could potentially go toward the public good. Latvian banks currently hold more than 39,000 long-unused accounts containing a total of approximately EUR 26.8 million. The Saeima has supported in the second reading a clear procedure for how to handle these funds. A client will have 5 years to apply and receive their money. If it is not claimed, the funds will come under state control. This procedure will not apply to Latvian residents, nor to frozen funds, funds seized in criminal proceedings, or funds subject to collection. When this money comes under state control, it must be used meaningfully and in the interests of the whole public! Children are our present and also our future. That is why I propose directing it to the creation of a Safe House for Children and Youth. ℹ️ The bill still needs the Saeima's final approval.
Open referenced post
From@AndrisKulbergs“In 2024, Evika Siliņa called this a ‘very successful deal’. It seems to me that after two years we finally have the opportunity to assess how successful it was.” “340 million euros at 14.5 percent. Then another 40 million. Total 380 million. At the time, even financial market experts publicly said — this was the most expensive bond rate in Europe that year‼️But the government told us about a success.” “If the market asks a company for 14.5 percent, that is not a compliment to the company. It is a very loud warning signal.” “And that is precisely where my main complaint against the previous government lies. If you borrow money at 14.5 percent, a fundamental corporate transformation plan must be on the table that same day — what the fleet will be, how costs will be reduced, how the capital structure will be arranged, and when a strategic investor will come in.” “Instead, we continued the growth story. Now, two years later, we have Seabury, creditor negotiations, preparation of a new plan, and discussion about who will give the next money.” “That is why I sometimes look with a certain envy at the previous government’s optimism. Borrowing at 14.5 percent and calling it a very successful deal — you really need to know how to be that optimistic.” “Our government will not repeat this mistake. First restructuring. First creditor participation. First a viable airBaltic. And only then a conversation about whether the state still has to finance anything more.”
Open referenced post
Maybe someone should do time after deals like this?
From@andrislovWhen Kulbergs learns with 'great surprise' that the long-praised wet lease is in the red over the year, that is no longer a surprise, it's a diagnosis. If even the basic business model—leasing aircraft with crew—turns out to be loss-making, then who still believes that a 'last chance' and debt restructuring will suddenly generate profit? When the prime minister himself finally sees this, the question is no longer 'how to save' but 'how long can we keep pretending that something can be saved'?
Open referenced post
From@AndrisKulbergs“In 2024, Evika Siliņa called this a ‘very successful deal’. It seems to me that after two years we finally have the opportunity to assess how successful it was.” “340 million euros at 14.5 percent. Then another 40 million. Total 380 million. At the time, even financial market experts publicly said — this was the most expensive bond rate in Europe that year‼️But the government told us about a success.” “If the market asks a company for 14.5 percent, that is not a compliment to the company. It is a very loud warning signal.” “And that is precisely where my main complaint against the previous government lies. If you borrow money at 14.5 percent, a fundamental corporate transformation plan must be on the table that same day — what the fleet will be, how costs will be reduced, how the capital structure will be arranged, and when a strategic investor will come in.” “Instead, we continued the growth story. Now, two years later, we have Seabury, creditor negotiations, preparation of a new plan, and discussion about who will give the next money.” “That is why I sometimes look with a certain envy at the previous government’s optimism. Borrowing at 14.5 percent and calling it a very successful deal — you really need to know how to be that optimistic.” “Our government will not repeat this mistake. First restructuring. First creditor participation. First a viable airBaltic. And only then a conversation about whether the state still has to finance anything more.”
Open referenced post
Kulbergs accused Silina's government of problems at airBaltic
From@AndrisKulbergs“In 2024, Evika Siliņa called this a ‘very successful deal’. It seems to me that after two years we finally have the opportunity to assess how successful it was.” “340 million euros at 14.5 percent. Then another 40 million. Total 380 million. At the time, even financial market experts publicly said — this was the most expensive bond rate in Europe that year‼️But the government told us about a success.” “If the market asks a company for 14.5 percent, that is not a compliment to the company. It is a very loud warning signal.” “And that is precisely where my main complaint against the previous government lies. If you borrow money at 14.5 percent, a fundamental corporate transformation plan must be on the table that same day — what the fleet will be, how costs will be reduced, how the capital structure will be arranged, and when a strategic investor will come in.” “Instead, we continued the growth story. Now, two years later, we have Seabury, creditor negotiations, preparation of a new plan, and discussion about who will give the next money.” “That is why I sometimes look with a certain envy at the previous government’s optimism. Borrowing at 14.5 percent and calling it a very successful deal — you really need to know how to be that optimistic.” “Our government will not repeat this mistake. First restructuring. First creditor participation. First a viable airBaltic. And only then a conversation about whether the state still has to finance anything more.”
Open referenced post
Andris is still laughing. And it's unclear whether it's through tears. I haven't for a long time. The previous government spoke beautifully and many people believed. Meanwhile, as a society, we systematically and inevitably continued to lose hundreds of millions. Not only with Ošlejs' ballads, but with the hands of completely real and decisive people. They are not a rarity, the typical level of a Twitter commenter. Ordinary people. My heart truly hurts. Physically. When I first became acquainted with the company's situation from the inside and came out of the Saeima meeting, psychosomatics kicked in. It stabbed my heart. No, no heart attack. You may not believe it, but since then I no longer smile at meetings. I watch with incomprehension the bustling carefree faces that are typical of all corporate governance meetings. For example. This week I participated in a meeting about RailBaltic. There, the Saeima representative emotionlessly announced that the construction technical specification specifies gravel that is not available in Latvia at all. Only on Mars. And nobody found that strange, the meeting continued. I decided that it's a victory. Have a nice evening.
From@AndrisKulbergs“In 2024, Evika Siliņa called this a ‘very successful deal’. It seems to me that after two years we finally have the opportunity to assess how successful it was.” “340 million euros at 14.5 percent. Then another 40 million. Total 380 million. At the time, even financial market experts publicly said — this was the most expensive bond rate in Europe that year‼️But the government told us about a success.” “If the market asks a company for 14.5 percent, that is not a compliment to the company. It is a very loud warning signal.” “And that is precisely where my main complaint against the previous government lies. If you borrow money at 14.5 percent, a fundamental corporate transformation plan must be on the table that same day — what the fleet will be, how costs will be reduced, how the capital structure will be arranged, and when a strategic investor will come in.” “Instead, we continued the growth story. Now, two years later, we have Seabury, creditor negotiations, preparation of a new plan, and discussion about who will give the next money.” “That is why I sometimes look with a certain envy at the previous government’s optimism. Borrowing at 14.5 percent and calling it a very successful deal — you really need to know how to be that optimistic.” “Our government will not repeat this mistake. First restructuring. First creditor participation. First a viable airBaltic. And only then a conversation about whether the state still has to finance anything more.”
Open referenced post
Kulbergs proposes freezing government salaries in 2027
@KalninsK @PuukjisIN @lastguru_net @akberzins @Oslejs @airBaltic @Rigassatiksme_ Dear Kristaps! The source is my efforts to get to Frankfurt and London over the years. I even flew to London twice via Helsinki, because Finnair had a cheaper price than Ryannair, not to mention AirBalic, whose ticket cost 2x more.
From@KalninsK@AnsisPupols @PuukjisIN @lastguru_net @akberzins @Oslejs @airBaltic @Rigassatiksme_ Mr. Pupols, could you please provide a reference to the source where it is proven that 'on average more expensive than Lufthansa or Finnair'? And a question, do you understand how the air ticket price is formed?
Open referenced post
From@AndrisKulbergs@NaurisVizulis @airBaltic The wet lease, to my great surprise, is 'bad' over the course of a year - one can sense what a 'good deal' Gauss struck under the then Ministry of Transport leadership.... When I saw this, I couldn't believe it.
Open referenced post
From@AnsisPupols🚋 The municipality invests in @Rigassatiksme_, compensating social groups for the difference between the actual and set ticket price. Plus we also have to consider that most passengers don't pay for their ticket at all. For example, pensioners. One could ask Riga residents for five euros for a day ticket and 12 for a night ride, which is what it actually costs. But then no one would ride the tram. Those who have money would use Bolt, those who don't would push the Riga City Council with all its deputies into the Daugava. The problem with @airBaltic is that you have to pay on average more for a ticket than with @lufthansa or @Finnair, and the state still has to make up the difference.
Open referenced post
@JanisIkstens Show at least one prime minister's burned taxpayer euro related to the airline. If you don't know how to calculate, then you'd better keep your mouth shut.
From@JanisIkstensSo the burning of taxpayers' money continues. Contrary to Kulbergs's own promises. Another story about mouth flapping. https://t.co/sDePyAMLaO
Open referenced post
@Nodusgordius @CSDD_LV @Apvienotais_ a submission has already been filed with the prosecutor's office
From@Nodusgordius@AndrisKulbergs @CSDD_LV @Apvienotais_ When will there be a criminal process against board and council officials???🤔 At minimum, there was criminal negligence that caused extremely serious consequences, if not deliberate sabotage or high treason!
Open referenced post
Here is a legal aspect - when dismissing, there must immediately be someone who is allowed to sign papers, to answer for the company's operations. A temporary council must be installed so that it can legitimately appoint a temporary board = that's elementary logic, after all. Competitions for permanent positions will be held for all posts without delay. This is temporary, so that operations do not stop. That the whole system is rotten has long been clear, but to change it takes time, in the meantime we must act in accordance with existing legislation.
From@MartinsKriekis@karlis_serzants Funny how Kulbergs with this shows that Unity's Kozlovskis may get a green light to again put the same kind of pointless parasites from the count's entourage on the council, nothing good is to be expected there. Kulbergs demonstrated that he is flesh and blood of Unity.
Open referenced post
Pre-election battle costs millions – revealed which parties spend the most
This is important. Otherwise Latgale's court would have had a serious overload.
From@EdvardsSmiltens🧑🏼⚖️ Immigration-related cases will now be able to be distributed more evenly among courts throughout Latvia. ✅ The Saeima has adopted in the final reading amendments to the Immigration Law that will allow cases related to detained foreigners to be distributed more evenly among district courts throughout Latvia. Until now, these cases were largely concentrated in the Latgale District Court, creating a disproportionate additional burden. At the Saeima's out-of-town sitting in Latgale, we heard this problem very clearly from court representatives. We did not put this issue aside – we acted, and today the solution has been adopted. This means we will be able to use the capacity of the court system more wisely – if the volume of work increases significantly in one region, part of the cases can be redirected to courts where resources are available. This will help reduce the workload of one court and ensure more timely consideration of other cases as well. 💻 Importantly, the hearing of cases will be possible remotely using video conferencing, so transferring a case to another Latvian court will not require the physical transfer of the detained person to that court, and thus will not create expenses related to bringing the person to court. At the same time, court control, the grounds for detention, and the procedural guarantees of the person remain unchanged. Only the procedure for case distribution changes – so that the court system throughout Latvia can work more efficiently and resiliently. The court system must be sufficiently flexible to use resources where they are most needed at any given moment!
Open referenced post